Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Yes, I knew he did it B4 '42, that's why I put officially in "quotes". I thought Daitoryu & Shinkage-ryu WERE both sword-based arts? I thought a "Daito" was a samurai who carried two swords? Hmm...

Daito-ryu is a jujutsu art, not a sword art. Shinkage-ryu is a sword art, but its influence on Takeda Sokaku's Daito-ryu is circumstantial at best. Takeda did study Jikishinkage-ryu, an off-shoot of Shinkage-ryu. However, to my understanding, Daito-ryu does not derive technically from Jikishinkage-ryu. Shinkage-ryu influence on Ueshiba's aikido is negligible.

A "daito" is a term used to describe either a large sword, or the larger of the two swords all samurai carried. However, the "daito" of Daito-ryu is not "large sword", but rather "Greater East".

All samurai, by law, carried two swords, so there was no special name for a samurai who did so. Perhaps you are thinking "daisho", which is a term (meaning "big and small") referring to the two swords they carried.

Last edited by Josh Reyer : 06-05-2009 at 12:17 PM.

Josh Reyer

The lyf so short, the crafte so longe to lerne,
Th'assay so harde, so sharpe the conquerynge...
- Chaucer

Yes, I knew he did it B4 '42, that's why I put officially in "quotes". I thought Daitoryu & Shinkage-ryu WERE both sword-based arts? I thought a "Daito" was a samurai who carried two swords? Hmm...

Being banned from schools sounds more correct, now that I see it. I have someone I know who is very knowledgable on Budo history that can clear that up for me.

Thank you for your timely response. I wanted to get my story str8 4 my records.

DNBK = Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Generally (and the more knowledgeable here will correct me or add details), the martial arts organization of Japan. Um, but there's a whole lot of history with the DNBK.

If you'll note Fred's post about Ueshiba receiving a scroll in Shinkage-ryu from Takeda and Takeda's background in the sword arts, you can start to see the differences in what was later called Daito ryu and Aikido. More specifically, Daito ryu aikijujutsu, not Daito ryu kenjutsu. Or look at it this way ... take a look at all the sword arts of Japan and how they are taught today. Pretty much still sword arts. How is Daito ryu and Aikido taught today? Mostly they aren't sword arts. Big differences sometimes.

So, I don't think you can say that Aikido is "modern Budo distilled from ancient sword schools". You can probably say that Ueshiba had training in some form or another of kenjutsu and kendo and it influenced him somewhat (how much is another debate) in the forming of his Aikido.

Perhaps you are thinking "daisho", which is a term (meaning "big and small") referring to the two swords they carried.

That's another phrase that should come with a big flashing warning light, since slang usage refers to widespread sexual practices among the samurai, in an oblique anatomical reference to the two "swords" of a samurai and his (often) considerably younger boy-toy, as some unfortunate souls have discovered well after getting themselves tattooed with the kanji in question....

I always assumed, that not only the photos but also the text belong to the training manual of 1938. Isn't that correct?

I refer to the following passages:

p32:
"Our enlightened ancestors developed true budo based on humanity, love, and sincerity; it' heart consits of sincer bravery, sincere wisdom, sincere love, and sincere empathy.These four spiritual virtues should be incorporated in the singel sword of diligence training; contnatly forge the spirit and body and let the brilliance of the transforming sword ermeate your entire beeing."

p34:
"... those sincerely training inother forms of budomanifest teachings that reflect the grand dsign of heaven and earth and lead to enlightenment. Hence the virtues of bravery, wisdom, love and empathy, are united in the body and mind, creating a beautifull valiant sword that directs us to greater and greater realizations."

So Ueshiba himself was not aware to be the first one to connect budo and love?

What am I getting wrong?

Carsten

No, no. I am not stating that you are getting anything wrong. O Sensei's 'aiki is aiki' (matching ki and love ki) references need to be treated with great care and so I am making doubly sure which text of M Ueshiba you are using.

As I have shown before, the introductions of the Budo manual (1938) and the Budo Renshu training manual (1933) are very similar. In the texts you cite, the term appears with other virtues that have come from 'our enlightened ancestors' and these virtues form 'the body into a true sword', which is yamato-damashii (the principle behind the divine sword that manifests the soul of our nation' -- I am using the Stevens translation because it is convenient, not because it is accurate). The entire first section presents a connected argument.

Another wartime text presents the virtues (obviously from 'enlightened ancestors'), which are desirable in warriors, namely, the ultranationalist Kokutai no Hongi (Cardinal Principles of the National Entity of Japan, 1935), which was banned after the war. The question for readers of the Budo text is the extent to which this is coincidental.

This is as much as I have time for at present (I am struggling to finish Column 13 in time for Jun's deadline).

That's another phrase that should come with a big flashing warning light, since slang usage refers to widespread sexual practices among the samurai, in an oblique anatomical reference to the two "swords" of a samurai and his (often) considerably younger boy-toy, as some unfortunate souls have discovered well after getting themselves tattooed with the kanji in question....

Maybe the answer is O'Sensei didn't misinterpret, rather defined a type. Maybe it is kind of like cooking where recognized chefs add their own style to a standard dish. Oh, say Chicken soup, for the example. The basic ingredients are the same, you start with a chicken broth and pasta, with chicken. What makes it good is how you make the broth, add the spices, and how you make the pasta, and prepare the chicken, and finally add other stuff like celery etc. The stuff you make the soup with isn't what makes the soup it is how you put it all together to make it your own dish.

I think this is really a difficult question. For one is it possible to nail down an exact definition of Budo that is universal, like chicken soup broth? Two, how is it defined what is properly interpreted and what isn't in terms of Budo. Three, what is the standard of budo that we measure everything else by?

Budo is a term I see used in so many ways, from karate schools, mcdojo's. I am not sure how the Japanese really use it or intended it to be used Like, is it a broadsweeping term, an abstract, a catch-all, I don't know? And has the meaning change through the years, did Budo mean something different when it was first used, then what it means today?

Ya, know, I don't know if he did misinterpret the meaning, he could have, it is possible. Personally, I would like to read more in detail from those experts on this. Then I would ask does it matter if he did. I say this cause I don't know what then is the affect upon Aikido.

Is it at all possible that O'SENSEI misinterpreted the meaning of Budo? Based on some of my reading Budo has a different meaning among the Japanese thought, than what O'SENSEI taught. This could very well be my misunderstandings of O'SENSEI'S teachings though. Just looking for your opinions.

O-Sensei did not "misinterpret" the meaning of Budo. He redefined his Budo through his creation of Aikido. Aikido is clearly a form of Budo; the Founder always said it was. He also was clear that he knew and intended for his Budo to be different than what had gone before. This is not a "misinterpretation" it is a radical redefinition.

O-Sensei did not "misinterpret" the meaning of Budo. He redefined his Budo through his creation of Aikido. Aikido is clearly a form of Budo; the Founder always said it was. He also was clear that he knew and intended for his Budo to be different than what had gone before. This is not a "misinterpretation" it is a radical redefinition.

Hey, George! Enjoying your posts, as usual.

Have you read Friday's article in the conference compendium, Budo Perspectives? It touches on the meaning of Budo and attacks our popular teleological view of it.

Have the book but haven't had the chance to read it all yet. I am usually in the middle of three or four books at any one time. I'll kill six or seven recreational fictions for every serious academic book I get through. They are my "rest" activity. Hope to see you this year some time...
- George

The reason I asked about Friday's article was that he suggests that martial arts FROM INCEPTION were of spiritual/antiquarian design. He cites the evidence of injury reports to show that sword wounds were far down the list of relevance to battle. Ergo, as the KORYU BUGEI (even the JU HAPPON BUGEI) center around the sword, their purpose was other than utility.

The way I piece this together is that as MICHI (i.e., the layering of the spiritual onto the secular/the secular as a map of the spiritual), the bujutsu already were budo and Osensei's version of BUDO is pretty much a affirmation of this paradigm, a reformation rather than a revolution. What say you?

The reason I asked about Friday's article was that he suggests that martial arts FROM INCEPTION were of spiritual/antiquarian design. He cites the evidence of injury reports to show that sword wounds were far down the list of relevance to battle. Ergo, as the KORYU BUGEI (even the JU HAPPON BUGEI) center around the sword, their purpose was other than utility.

The way I piece this together is that as MICHI (i.e., the layering of the spiritual onto the secular/the secular as a map of the spiritual), the bujutsu already were budo and Osensei's version of BUDO is pretty much a affirmation of this paradigm, a reformation rather than a revolution. What say you?

Thanks.

a) I think that Karl Friday was probably correct...
b) I don't think that most Japanese viewed it that way
so
c) O-Sensei stating it right out loud and in your face was still a revolution

Just look at how entirely impossible it is to get Aikido practitioners themselves to stop trying to make it into a "fighting style".

Interesting juxtaposition of Friday's revisionism and the stolid traditional line from the some of the Jpn (I didn't read the whole thing). Wonder how he was received presenting the paper.

While I have no idea how his paper was received at the presentation, I know several Japanese sensei who in general agree with his overall premise. I think his idea is really only "shocking" to those whose primary knowledge of Japan is filtered through our martial arts related hobbies and colored by the whole idea of it being primarily a combative endevour. For most historians I know over here the reaction would be more in the "well duh..." catagory as the transition for fighting arts into the traditional ryuha structure with in the warrior class is just part of a general trend of the times of "packaging" information of all types together into various art forms. The idea that traditional ryuha training was the primary means of training martial skills for use on the battlefield seems (and I believe Friday discussed this as well, it's been awhile since I've read it) to have only take hold in the Edo period. Now within the context of individual ryuha (or even some generations of a ryuha's history based on the personality of the head teacher at that time), some did place more or less emphasis on how combatively effective their methods were, and some ryu (or again teachers) did lean more and more to the "combat as the main focus" type of thing, but extreme levels of sophistication in method, theory and practice of many ryu make them inherently somewhat uneffective for quickly and effectively teaching usable battlefield skills for the everyday troops and seem to have them leaning more towards the realm of mastery for mastery's sake which, while including a heightened ablility to survive on the battlefield, also contains any number of other aims. That is not to say they aren't effective, many of them are devistatingly effective on the combative side of the equation. It's just that the road to reach that level in many case was unrealistically long for the ryu to really be only about combat (keep in mind it is difficult to talk in general about traditional ryuha this way as there is huge range of variety between different schools and their aims).

I think it is a fair arguement that for most of all major ryuha's existence they have been outside of the context of "battle" for most of their history (even the oldest ones you are probably only talking about the first couple of generations who lived in a world where such worries were real), and this loss of the potential of actually having to go and fight and how one might train for such an event, made it easy to think that the more organized and successful "ryuha" bugei where the normal way to train combative skills as there were the method that survived.